Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

Yeah and when you look at all of the things done by NIST that raise red flags, such as not testing for explosive residues or considering the
demolition hypothesis, ignoring their experimental results that showed 6 inches of sagging and instead saying that the trusses sagged 40 inches in
their models, ignoring Appendix C of the FEMA report from their investigation, and refusing to provide people with their data requested under the
Freedom of Information Act in the name of "public safety", it baffles me that people still defend that organization.

Just try to THINK for yourself, please!!! Apply some logic, and a greater understanding of physics, as it applies to gravity, and the dynamics of a
building that has been rendered unstable, because of (A) severe lateral impact damage and, (B) Severe uneven heating due to uncontrolled fires
affecting the expansion rates of various structural members.

OK, let's think about that for a minute. First of all, you brought up gravity.
How can gravity produce the force necessary to eject steel beams weighing several thousand pounds laterally hundreds of feet at speeds of well over
50mph?

You mentioned the "severe lateral impact damage" caused by the airplanes. Why did the World Trade Center Construction and Project Management Manager
Frank DeMartini explain that the building could withstand multiple strikes from jetliners, because the structure is like the mosquito netting of a
screen door, and the jetliners are just like a pencil puncturing the screen netting? Why did he say "It really does nothing to the screen netting"?
And how does his description fit into your description of the Towers being "rendered unstable"?

You also mentioned the effects of the fire heating the steel. Why did NIST disregard their experimental evidence that showed 6 inches of sag after 60
minutes, and instead input 40 inches in their models? And most important of all, why has a steel-framed skyscraper never collapsed due to fire
damage, even though fires have burned for much longer covering a much greater area of the building?

In '9/11 blueprint for truth' they do produce chemical evidence of a sol gel charge with the high presence of 1,3-diphenylpropane recorded by the
EPA. Thermite is one ingredient of the sol gel compound used and available at the 39 minute mark in the video below. Analysis of some of the wreckage
also points to the use of thermate with the presence of sulphur also found.

OK, let's think about that for a minute. First of all, you brought up gravity. How can gravity produce the force necessary to eject steel
beams weighing several thousand pounds laterally hundreds of feet at speeds of well over 50mph?

The immense forces of gravity can do this, combined with the chaotic forces that were in play.

BUT.....absent ANY HUGE BOOMS of "explosives" to propel this debris laterally?? Just think about it......you, yourself, said "necessary to
eject steel beams weighing several thousand pounds laterally hundreds of feet at speeds well over 50mph".

THINK about THAT, would you, please???

Just "what" could do what you, yourself, described????? AND, do it "silently"???

(Keep in mind the speed of sound, from any video you watch, compared to the distance the camera, and microphone, was at .....)

Can you remember the moment that it finally clicked for you? It took me three days to find reality again as I had to re-evaluate everything that I
though was real. Here we are prepared to fight and die for our nation yet our government, media and corporations all lie to us. There are a lot of
deep issues that must be confronted in facing reality and the jungle we live in. It does hurt being raised to believe in honesty and decency and
finding out that there is an absence of these moral guides in the leadership and organisation of this world. Just what is the point of it all

You are doing a great job in just providing the facts, it does take time to consider the possibility of what is and what this means to us as we try to
confront and understand the implications for ourselves and society.

What you, and many to this area, have been fooled by are the charlatans who compile disparate "eyewitness" reports, but fail to properly "timeline"
them, to give the false impression of "detonations" (when, in fact, the eyewitnesses are reporting what they properly heard..."explosions"....and
explosions are certainly not unexpected ina fire situation).

Go back and carefully vet the timelines....the "eyewitness" positions, and think again, carefully, about TIME and DISTANCE and the difference
between the speed of LIGHT, and the speed of SOUND!!

Please listen carefully to the soundtrack in this video....and, keep in mind, what REAL people would have heard at the time, compared to the
recording:

When people report explosions, I assume they know what an explosion sounds like, and take their word that they heard explosions. Craig Bartmer from
the New York Police Department:

"The whole time you hear 'Thoom, thoom, thoom, thoom, thoom'. I think I know an explosion when I hear
it."

Kevin McPadden:

"You heard explosions, like 'ba-BOOM!'. It's a distinct sound, it's not like compression like 'boom, boom,
boom', like floors that were dropping or collapsing, this was like 'ba-BOOM!', and you felt the rumble in the ground almost like you wanted to grab
onto something. To me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind."

There are dozens of witnesses who have reported hearing explosions. That's enough to convince me that explosions were heard, and this coincides with
all of the other characteristics of the buildings collapses that match up with a controlled demolition.

If you want witnesses reporting explosions on all four sides, look it up yourself dude.

What do you think...no, WHO do you think were flying the airplanes? American 11 and United 175?
I dunno, but I would guess Al-CIAda operatives. 'Terrorists' trained by the CIA or working with whoever was really responsible for the controlled
demolition to accomplish just what they did: hi-jack the planes and crash them. I can't say for sure though, I can just speculate.

I dunno, but I would guess Al-CIAda operatives. 'Terrorists' trained by the CIA or working with whoever was really responsible for the
controlled demolition to accomplish just what they did: hi-jack the planes and crash them. I can't say for sure though, I can just
speculate.

But.....how many people can you think of, besides Religious Extremists, who are willing to be, essentially, suicide
bombers??

......

Could we go ahead and refer to these people as 'Manchurian Candidates' now?

Regarding the OP - thanks for the work. One thing I think is that it doesn't really take an 'expert' to question the OS - hence so many
'non-experts' speaking out. Others cannot cannot for fear of their livelyhoods I presume and then the ones who believe the OS. All divided up
nicely.

Could we go ahead and refer to these people as 'Manchurian Candidates' now?

IF you wish......but, really???

I mean, when someone brings the concept of "Manchurian Candidate" they are immediately introducing an aspect of Fiction....and particularly,
Science Fiction, to the discussion......to the "narrative".....

The EPA found that the Diphenylpropane was result of the fires in the debris pile "cooking" many common
materials including PVC (poly vinyl chloride)

Fires at Ground Zero smoldered for three months and reached temperatures as high as 1,800 degrees, creating what one scientist characterized as a
"chemical factory" that brewed new compounds. One effect was a sort of mini-ozone hole phenomenon, in which chlorinated compounds scavenged hydrogen
and other atoms off neighboring molecules, transforming them into volatile gases. (newsday.com)

The picture that emerged from various presentations depicted an unprecedented chemical event that evolved minute-by-minute, throwing a stew of
compounds into the air. Researchers said one molecule they detected had never been found in air before. (newsday.com)

The mixture also includes emissions of burning and remnant materials from the WTC site. The molecular markers for these emissions include retene and
1,4a-dimethyl-7-(methylethyl)-1,2,3,4,9,10,10a,4a-octahydrophenanthrene which are typically biogenic in origin. In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenyl
propane [1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] is found in significant concentrations. This species has not previously been reported from ambient
sampling. It has been associated with polyvinyl chloride materials, which are believed to be in abundance at the WTC site. These emissions lasted for
over three weeks (9/26/01-10/20/01) after the initial destruction of the WTC. (epa.gov)

Yeah the Blueprint documentary focuses more on getting the evidence across in a slideshow type presentation, but this one takes a little different
approach, with basically the entire documentary consisting of segments of the interviews with all of the experts. It may not be as effective, but I
thought it was interesting to have lots of different people giving their opinions on the topics at hand.

Then you must not have watched the film or read the OP. They're filled with evidence that backs
up a controlled demolition and can't be explained by the fire/gravity hypothesis. Simply saying that there isn't evidence doesn't magically make
all of the evidence disappear just because you say it's not there. Perhaps you should watch the section of the film about psychology and coping with
information and evidence supporting a demolition?

One thing I really should have clarified and elaborated more on in the OP that you brought up was that the thermite itself would not solely be
responsible for the demolition of the towers. I did describe how it's not explosive, but I didn't really explain much more.

The thermite could not produce the explosive force necessary to pulverize the cement or hurl the massive steel gerders laterally at speeds of up to 70
mph (And neither could gravity).Thermite is not explosive, it's an incendiary, which can be used to cut steel by producing an extreme heat reaction.
It can't however produce explosive results such as C4 or RDX charges, which obviously would have had to accompany the thermite in the building in
order to bring the buildings down.

Watching hours of video with such experts on demolition as David Griffin, psychologists, and the dynamite gopher explaining how it 'just had to be
demolition' is pointless. Your post talks of WTC7 but based on the hurling of massive steel girders, I would guess you are talking about the WTC
towers also. I can also believe that no one has anything but handy phrases like "it had to be demolition because buildings wouldn't fall that way"
or such gems as "gravitational collapse couldn't pulverize the cement and drywall." Why not? Because they want to believe that there was a
demolition. There is no hard evidence of demolition. There were no wires, blasting materials, beams showing linear charge cuts, undetonated charges,
primacord, blasting machines, or anything else recovered. There are only opinions and feelings and the desire to generate income and publicity for the
purveyors of such theories.
Gravity can explain lateral movement during collapse. As the outer columns were disconnected from the core, large sections rotated and fell
outwards.
It seems that none of the 'demolition experts' know that gravity is a major contributor to demolition. If enough explosive were used to pulverize
concrete and clear each floor in under 200 milliseconds, it would have been very obvious on the videos and with all the broken windows in Manhattan.

I'm not going to take the time to type up the quotes for you, but if you're interested, watch the Tom Sullivan interview posted
in the OP where he describes his experience in demolition, and the types of charges and equipment used, and what sort of debris is left after the
detonation. He addresses this exact thing.

Gravity can explain lateral movement during collapse. As the outer columns were disconnected from the core, large sections rotated and fell
outwards.

"Fell outwards" doesn't exactly match up with being launched hundreds of feet laterally at well over 50mph.

Holy smokes! Awesome thread Tupac, tons of info to sift through here! (S&F) I have always felt the events of 9/11 were highly suspicious. There are so
many things that don't add up it's not even funny. Even if we take the two towers out of the equation, that still leaves us with building 7. No amount
of repeating "they fell because of fire" over and over will convince me that they fell by fire...This was a very well built government building..
Anyway, great job at compiling all this info, thanks!

I'm not going to take the time to type up the quotes for you, but if you're interested, watch the Tom Sullivan interview posted
in the OP where he describes his experience in demolition, and the types of charges and equipment used, and what sort of debris is left after the
detonation. He addresses this exact thing.

Gravity can explain lateral movement during collapse. As the outer columns were disconnected from the core, large sections rotated and fell
outwards.

"Fell outwards" doesn't exactly match up with being launched hundreds of feet laterally at well over 50mph.

Tom is the dynamite gopher. He deals with commercial demolitions by placing them where he is told. One of the claims is that these were super secret
demolitions because the patterns of explosions in a commercial demolition were not detected. If this was not a commercial demolition, how would Tom
know what was to be found? Fortunately, I have some experience with non-commercial demolitions. The newer ones are more powerful and louder.

"Launched hundreds of feet laterally at well over 50mph?" What happened to the 'fell in their own footprint' claims? Depending on the lever arm,
it is entirely possible for a column to end up some distance away after falling 1000 feet or so.

Does anyone in the video say what explosives were used, how much was used and where they were placed?

Tom is the dynamite gopher. He deals with commercial demolitions by placing them where he is told. One of the claims is that these were super
secret demolitions because the patterns of explosions in a commercial demolition were not detected. If this was not a commercial demolition, how would
Tom know what was to be found? Fortunately, I have some experience with non-commercial demolitions. The newer ones are more powerful and
louder.

He describes the explosive charges which basically detonate and get rid of everything upon detonation: blasting caps, and all of that
stuff you described. That's what I was getting at.

"Launched hundreds of feet laterally at well over 50mph?" What happened to the 'fell in their own footprint' claims?

I believe you
have WTC7 and the Twin Towers mixed up. WTC7s collapse was relatively confined to it's own footprint as the post-collapse images show. It didn't
topple over or fall towards the path of least resistance as every other building collapse outside of demolitions have done, it fell straight down,
symmetrically, and piled up neatly right around the area where it was standing at.

Depending on the lever arm, it is entirely possible for a column to end up some distance away after falling 1000 feet or so.

The speed
in particular is what boggles my mind the most.

Does anyone in the video say what explosives were used, how much was used and where they were placed?

Nope. What, you didn't watch it?

The only refrences made to any incendiaries are thermite, and they describe it's ability to cut steel, and what byproducts it produces. I think
there may have been some guy who talked about other explosives being needed to accompany this, but I don't remember any specific names.

The evidence presented within the film focuses more on anomalies that are explainable by the use of explosives in a controlled demolition rather than
the specifics of exactly where the explosives were in the building and things of that nature. Because proof that demolition explains certain things
that fire does not doesn't need those specifics that you described to accompany it in order to make it any more valid.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.